Voluntary Authenticated POTN Member Registration

A thought came to mind as I was reading the most recent thread about a member having been victim to a fraudulent seller here on POTN. Is there a way that members/sellers here on POTN can verify identity and the member could receive status as an "authenticated member" here on POTN? For example, Pekka or a moderator could somehow confirm a member's personal identity (website, business card, photo id or something). This could be a requirement for items being sold for, say, $2500 and voluntary for other members/sellers.

I don't know how people feel about sharing personal information to Pekka or the moderators, but I trust these guys. I wouldn't mind scanning my driver's license in for them to keep a record. I'd also agree to not hold them liable for any breach of personal information that I provide. I'd also agree that I will re-authenticate each year to confirm that my account has not been hacked - and, as soon as I suspect if it's been hacked, then I'd notify them.

Just a thought.

I thought I did that when I provided my ss and mother's maiden name when I registered???

Wouldn't it be just easier for folks to use paypal and not pay through bank transfer to unknown folks with few posts?

It happens still. This would just give better peace of mind to buyers. Again, it'd be voluntary for most transactions. I don't think it'd cause a flood of applicants for registration. Maybe to request authentication, the seller/member must be interested in selling a single item above a certain threshold. It would give a bit of comfort to someone who might be purchasing a $5000 item.

Basically, it's an additional qualification to sell. Currently, anyone with a certain level of participation can sell on POTN. That's the entry-level seller. This would be a high value seller designation.

I just feel that's an unfair burden on Pekka. And it makes him more liable when something goes wrong. Maybe that's why FM charges to list sale items, I don't know. As this is a free forum, we need to be responsible for our own actions and the repercussions that follow. Maybe Paypal or face to face needs to be the standard to make sure the buyer, and seller are protected.

I think that would put a lot of work on Pekka or any moderator when you can take steps to ensure your safety when buying online through forums. I've bought and sold online a lot and through my own research and just generally being cautious I've never had an issue. If you are hesitant about a seller or buyer, if they are truly legit, they normally will not mind providing references of online presence or otherwise to ensure a smooth transaction. Also as mentioned using services like paypal regular you would still be protected as a buyer. I completely agree with Chet, its too much additional work when its your responsibility to ensure your safe. Pekka has already put resources on the forum to ensure a safe transaction.

Chet wrote in post #18046900
I just feel that's an unfair burden on Pekka. And it makes him more liable when something goes wrong. Maybe that's why FM charges to list sale items, I don't know. As this is a free forum, we need to be responsible for our own actions and the repercussions that follow. Maybe Paypal or face to face needs to be the standard to make sure the buyer, and seller are protected.

I totally agree and I said as much in the thread discussing how a member recently got scammed. I do think we need to take better precaution for ourselves, especially when high dollar are at stake. I'm just throwing out an idea to see if it sticks. I do see the problems associated and the additional burden.

The purpose of authentication would be limited to verifying a member is who he says he is and that there's some way to reach him. It's not a means to endorse a seller. I also stated above that we'd agree to absolve Pekka and POTN of liability.

I think Paypal and face-to-face is already the standard on this forum.

But the verification process would need to be of a much higher caliber. I can produce a scanned drivers license that looks legit. It would almost require a snail mail post card with a code that would need to be entered once received to verify the authenticity of an address. Not sure how that would work for p.o. addresses.

I don't like the idea. First off, it is unreasonable to expect a 3rd party (Pekka) to be in any way involved in your personal transactions just because he provides the medium for communication. Is the phone company responsible for telephone fraud?

The second thing that bothers me is the arbitrary $2500 point. Is it OK to steal lesser amounts from people? I don't want to be ripped off for $2499 and have no assurance or recourse, while you get ripped off for $2500 and have some/any protections.

The whole idea puts more personal information out where YOU/I have no control over what happens to it. That hardly seems like an increase in your personal financial security.

While holding the thief in question wholly responsible for his actions, the victim in the referenced crime had indications that this transaction may not be legitimate. On the internet, a thief can only steal from a willing victim. No gun in your face or knife in your back here. Bottom line: you are on your own in this jungle - act accordingly. Jungle = online transactions. Not singling out POTN. This is true everywhere. The same applies to Craigslist and other such organizations. Its your money. Be particular about who you give it to. Don't expect anyone to care more about your money than you do.

Forty years ago, I made fake IDs to get into bars and nightclubs. Modern technology makes that a lot easier than it was in the '70s. How exhaustive will the 'background' check be? Who is paying for it?

Who is responsible when someone circumvents the system. If I lose $5000 buying a phantom 1DXII, is Pekka going to send me a check?

How is the system policed? You sell me item X, legitimately describing it and I have a bad day and claim you ripped me off. Now what? Who is spending time and/or money to sort that out?

I like the current system. It appears to work well, for me anyway. But I am a suspicious old curmudgeon. Then again, I honestly describe the items I sell. I actually own the items I sell. I actually ship the items I sell. If I am buying, I check reputation. If POTN reputation is thin, I ask for more. When more is provided, I contact the seller through the alternative method (E-bay, web-site, photography business, FM, Camel), just to make sure they are one and the same person. I strive to maintain an excellent online reputation. I think the idea posited in the original post will diminish the reputations of those of us who choose not to participate. I know I won't. That does not make me dishonest. It makes me cautious.

I don't expect anybody else to be responsible, no matter how minor the effort, for my transactions. For every safeguard created, there is a loophole to get around it, unfortunately. Just having visibility to banned members and the history of the scam(s) will help in the future. It provides a way to search for repeated behavior, certain "key phrases" used by the scammer, etc. Having a feedback system will help, but again isn't very bulletproof. We could go through an escrow payment service, but that is costly and tedious.

Evil is well and abounding in our society, I expect that I will get burned big-time sometime before I die. I just try to minimize the chances. That is all I can hope to do.

That guy who got scammed the cops won't be able to do nothing IMHO. I Know $5k is lot of money but for cops etc, that is small thing to worry about. And in his case, he has phone number, bank records and what not. If folks going to scam you, they going to scam you. Most people that I have dealt with are honest.

Good points raised and I don't disagree with anything said. I was of similar mindset when I was posting in the other thread making the same points. Today, I to propose and vet a solution. With the additional voices here, I am reminded that we do have a good system in place and people do need to be more careful.

That said, one way to be more careful is to try to gather as much information as possible about the other person before going through with a big transaction. Then, if anything looks fishy... then walk away.

Agreed. A 70-200 f/4L IS for $700 is likely just a good deal. A 600 f/4L IS II for $700 is likely not. Caveat Emptor, my friends.

I'm gonna take the discussion on tips and post to TeamSpeed's excellent Sticky: How to Be Better Informed During Online Purchases.

There should be a sticky pointing to that in each of the For Sale and Want to Buy subforums

How about a home or a business verified??? Must be a govt plot to spy on us all......